Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63467 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2006 18:53:20 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Jul 2006 18:53:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 62748 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2006 18:53:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 62366 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2006 18:53:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 62355 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jul 2006 18:53:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:53:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.182.142] (HELO e2.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:53:17 -0700 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6SIqs3x025152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:52:54 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6SIqsbf279290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:52:54 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6SIqsKC017847 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:52:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sig-9-76-210-1.mts.ibm.com [9.76.210.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6SIqnA8017553 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:52:53 -0400 Message-ID: <44CA5CFF.5060107@sbcglobal.net> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:52:47 -0700 From: Mike Matrigali Reply-To: mikem_app@sbcglobal.net User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: Startup time for Derby References: <44C955B7.2090502@sun.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N In this discussion it would be good to understand what "startup" means. 1) is the user "starting" up on an existing db. Our unit tests almost always create a new database as part of the startup. Since creating a new db and connecting is one step in derby, it is often difficult to tell the difference. 2) is the user "starting" up on an existing database that has a lot of recovery to do. Derby provides a way to shut down "cleanly" so that no recovery is necessary at the next startup. Michael J. Vinca wrote: > I can attest to it. My Java app had a very minimal startup time, until > I added a Derby database. Now it is very noticeable. I don't have any > specific numbers, just minimal to noticeable. :-) > > On Jul 27, 2006, at 8:09 PM, David Van Couvering wrote: > >> I am here at OSCON and a user of Derby was complaining rather >> energetically to me at the cost of startup time for Derby. He said >> this is a real problem for running unit tests, as this is compounded >> by running multiple tests, each one starting up a new database. >> >> I was wondering if other users out there have a similar complaint and >> if you can give a sense of how important this is. If you can >> describe your specific usage pattern that would be very helpful. >> >> Thanks! >> >> David > > > >